Evaluation of Naval Forces Final December Evaluation of Naval Forces. December (CRS) Chief Review Services

Transcription

1 Evaluation of Naval Forces December (CRS) Chief Review Services

2 Table of Contents Acronyms and Abbreviations...i Executive Summary...iii 1.0 Introduction Profile of Canada s Naval Forces Background Program Objectives Program Description Stakeholders and Partners Evaluation Scope Coverage and Responsibilities Resources Findings and Recommendations Continued Need Alignment with Federal Roles and Responsibilities Alignment with Government Priorities Achievement of Expected Outcomes (Effectiveness) Demonstration of Efficiency and Economy...21 Annex A Management Action Plan... A-1 Annex B Evaluation Methodology and Limitations... B-1 Annex C Logic Model... C-1 Annex D Evaluation Matrix... D-1 Chief Review Services

3 Acronyms and Abbreviations ADM(Fin CS) Assistant Deputy Minister (Finance and Corporate Services) ADM(IE) Assistant Deputy Minister (Infrastructure and Environment) ADM(Mat) Assistant Deputy Minister (Materiel) AOR Auxiliary Oiler Replenishment CAF Canadian Armed Forces CDS Chief of the Defence Staff CFCD Canadian Forces Controlled Document CFDS Canada First Defence Strategy CJOC Canadian Joint Operations Command CMP Chief of Military Personnel CMS Chief of Maritime Staff CO Commanding Officer CRCN Commander of the Royal Canadian Navy CRS Chief Review Services DGMEPM Director General Maritime Equipment Program Management DLN Defence Learning Network DND Department of National Defence EC Engineering Change EDWP Extended Docking Work Period FELEX Frigate Equipment Life Extension FG Force Generation FTE Full-Time Equivalent FY Fiscal Year GoC Government of Canada HCM Halifax-Class Modernization HQ Headquarters HR High Readiness IM&R Infrastructure Maintenance and Repair ISSC In-Service Support Contract L1 Level 1 MARLANT Maritime Forces Atlantic MARPAC Maritime Forces Pacific Chief Review Services i/vii

4 MCDV MEPM NATO NCOT NDHQ NORAD NP NSHQ NTM O&M OPI PAA PMF PML P Res RCAF RCN Reg F RIMPAC RPRC SUBMOAR SR TBS TES USN VCI Maritime Coastal Defence Vessel Maritime Equipment Program Management North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Naval Combat Operations Trainer National Defence Headquarters North American Aerospace Defence National Procurement Naval Staff Headquarters Notice to Move Operations and Maintenance Office of Primary Interest Program Activity Architecture Performance Measurement Framework Planned Manning Level Primary Reserve Royal Canadian Air Force Royal Canadian Navy Regular Force United States Navy Rim of the Pacific Exercise Real Property Replacement Cost Submarine Maintenance and Operational Cycle Alignment and Rationalization Standard Readiness Treasury Board Secretariat Trained Effective Strength United States Navy Victoria-Class Introduction Chief Review Services ii/vii

5 Executive Summary This report presents the findings and recommendations of the evaluation of the Naval Forces Program activities within the Department of National Defence (DND). The evaluation was conducted by Chief Review Services (CRS) between November 2012 and July 2013 as a component of the DND/Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) Five-Year Evaluation Plan (fiscal year (FY) 2012/13 to 2016/17), and in compliance with the Treasury Board Secretariat (TBS) Policy on Evaluation (2009). As per the TBS policy, the evaluation examines the relevance and the performance of the program over a five-year period ( ). Program Description Naval forces are defined as those elements of the Royal Canadian Navy (RCN), as well as supporting and related components, which are responsible for the generation and sustainment of naval readiness for employment in domestic/continental and international operations as directed by the Government of Canada (GoC). The program is administered principally by three organizations within the DND: the RCN, the Assistant Deputy Minister (Materiel) (ADM(Mat)), and the Chief of Military Personnel (CMP). This program falls primarily under section 2.1 of the DND Program Activity Architecture (PAA) 2009 and involves annual expenditures in excess of $2.3 billion. Overall Assessment There is evidence of ongoing and demonstrable need for the Naval Forces activities within DND. This program is directly aligned with the roles, responsibilities and priorities of the federal government. The RCN has had challenges in meeting some of its readiness requirements because fewer frigates are available due to the Halifax- Class Modernization (HCM) and funding issues. Despite challenges with these readiness targets, the RCN has consistently met GoC and DND expectations and demands for the conduct of operations. While program expenditures have increased, they have not exceeded reasonable amounts for a fleet of the size and composition of the RCN. Relevance and Performance Relevance. The evaluation determined that the need for DND to conduct both the generation and employment of naval forces is of continuing relevance and is aligned with federal government and departmental roles, responsibilities and priorities. While the expenditures for Maritime Readiness represent 11 percent of the DND annual spending, the impact of its contribution to overall DND strategic objectives and priorities has been significant. The RCN contributions can directly impact and improve the safety and security of Canadians, and provide public confidence in the Government s ability to defend Canada and protect Canadian citizens at home and abroad. The RCN involvement in operations also draws significant positive media attention, earning recognition both nationally and internationally. Chief Review Services iii/vii

6 Continued Need. There is ample evidence of continued need for the RCN to generate and sustain globally deployable naval forces, up to and including combat operations, as directed by the GoC. In addition, the RCN works in close cooperation with other government departments to deal with a wide range of security threats to Canada, including terrorism, illegal resource exploitation, pollution violations, narcotics trafficking and illegal immigration. During the period of the evaluation, the program had serious challenges in meeting readiness targets (sufficient numbers of ships available for operations) as promulgated in readiness directives. The principal factor for this shortcoming stems from a shortage of available ships. The root cause appears to have been a combination of the following factors: the impact of the HCM program, which is removing a significant number of ships from service; the high operational tempo during the evaluation period; under-funding for equipment maintenance; and a lack of capacity within both ADM(Mat) and the fleet maintenance facilities. Various initiatives are under way to address these issues. For example, the HCM will be complete by FY 2017/18, and ADM(Mat) has significantly improved its ability to meet equipment maintenance demands to the extent that going forward funding allocations will be the main challenge in addressing maintenance issues. Furthermore, the Department is undergoing numerous other initiatives to improve efficiencies as a means to address the funding gap. Despite shortcomings in meeting readiness targets during the evaluation period, the RCN has consistently met demands for the delivery of combat-capable forces for operations, both domestically and abroad. By and large, the forces employed have met DND mission requirements and expectations. As such, the RCN is highly regarded internationally, and among our allies, it is seen to be extremely capable, interoperable and reliable. Efficiency and Economy. With respect to efficiency and economy, the program is seen to have demonstrated sound value. Numerous efficiency improvements were noted, including a 24-percent increase in maintenance services delivered despite a reduction of 23 percent in the cost of personnel who deliver those services. Infrastructure costs were kept in line despite inflation. While the overall cost of the program has increased by 6 percent annually, this is largely a reflection of the much-needed increase in RCN personnel numbers. Benchmark indicators with allied navies demonstrate that although RCN personnel numbers have grown, given the age and composition of the fleet in 2012, the RCN has a reasonable number of personnel. Furthermore, with respect to overall expenditures against the size and composition of the fleet, in a comparison to benchmark allies (New Zealand, Germany, Australia, Netherlands, United Kingdom, and Spain), the RCN appears at the lower end of the spectrum. Chief Review Services iv/vii

7 The Naval Forces Program has demonstrated operational effectiveness despite numerous challenges. During the evaluation period, the program has faced pressures due to fleet modernization, age of equipment and increased operational tempo. However, while the program has taken steps to be more efficient in order to address its challenges, a principal concern over the availability of financial resources for priority areas will remain and will need to be carefully addressed. The findings and recommendations of the evaluation are presented as follows: Findings and Recommendations Findings Relevance Key Finding 1: There is evidence of continued need for the RCN to generate and sustain globally deployable naval forces to conduct domestic/continental and international operations, up to and including combat operations, as directed by the GoC Key Finding 2: There is alignment between the RCN s generation and delivery of Naval Forces and departmental and federal roles and responsibilities. Key Finding 3: The generation and delivery of combat-ready naval forces aligns directly with the government priority of A Safe and Secure World through International Engagement. Findings Performance (Effectiveness) Key Finding 4: During recent years there has been a steady decline in the RCN s ability to achieve the required levels of readiness, to the point that it is currently challenged to meet some of its readiness requirements. Key Finding 5: In order to meet readiness levels and force posture requirements, the RCN has had to rely more heavily on the use of Maritime Coastal Defence Vessels (MCDV) as a result of reduced frigate availability during the period of the HCM. This represents a reduction in force capability. Key Finding 6: The HCM and Victoria-class Introduction (VCI) programs, essential to the long-term viability of the Navy, have strained Navy resources and created issues in meeting current force posture and readiness targets. Key Finding 7: Among available ships, technical readiness and combat training are the primary challenges towards achieving prescribed readiness levels. Key Finding 8: Taking into consideration available units and funding, the RCN will remain challenged to meet prescribed readiness and force posture requirements for some time in the future. The Navy will be obliged to do less with less. Key Finding 9: Despite challenges with readiness targets, the RCN has consistently met GoC and DND expectations and demands for the conduct of operations. Chief Review Services v/vii

8 Key Finding 10: The Chief of Maritime Staff (CMS) preliminary readiness direction to formations led to an unintended reduction in the required materiel state of ships 1 entering the HCM and constrained the Navy s force generation (FG) capabilities. The direction was subsequently revised to address these issues. Findings Performance (Efficiency and Economy) Key Finding 11: The significant increase in personnel over the evaluation period was in response to personnel shortages. In terms of overall personnel numbers, the RCN appears to be properly sized. Key Finding 12: Significant improvements in the overall efficiency of fleet maintenance have occurred over the evaluation period. Key Finding 13: Despite the efficiency improvements, there remains a funding gap in maintenance within the RCN. Key Finding 14: Maritime Infrastructure Maintenance and Base Support costs have declined due to a reduction in personnel. However, these costs represent a larger proportion of the RCN s Operations and Maintenance (O&M) budget, resulting in fewer resources being available for other O&M expenditures. Key Finding 15: The Navy is delivering maritime training with increased efficiency. The overall cost of maritime training has decreased since FY 2008/09, whereas the number of people trained and the number of courses offered has increased. Key Finding 16: On average, the percentage of personnel trained at optimal course capacity was 54 percent. The RCN Performance Measurement Framework (PMF) sets a target for the percentage of personnel trained at optimal course capacity at 90 percent. 2 Key Finding 17: As a percentage of total readiness, Maritime Command and Control represents 7 percent of total costs on average. Over the evaluation period, the costs attributed to the Maritime Command and Control have increased significantly (40 percent) due to a large influx of personnel as a result of reductions or elimination of other coastal formation establishments and the transition of the Navy s coastal maritime headquarters (HQ) to Regional Joint Headquarters. Key Finding 18: The program expenditures for Maritime Readiness have increased during the evaluation period. However, they have not exceeded reasonable amounts for a fleet of the size and composition of the RCN. 1 The repair/maintenance state of the ship s hull and equipment is referred to as the material state of the ship. 2 SO 2.1 PMF (2010) sets performance target of 90 percent for Maritime Training indicator % personnel trained at optimal course capacity. Chief Review Services vi/vii

9 Key Finding 19: Overall costing data for RCN should include several Level 1 (L1) accounts, for example the PAA 2.1 Maritime Readiness includes CMP, RCN and ADM(Mat). It was noted that the RCN did not assess all its program expenditures (nor use performance indicators) that include all costs such as labour and materiel. Therefore, a true indication of costs and performance is not available, which may impact the ability to assess overall performance. Recommendations Recommendation 1: It is recommended that the RCN review its current readiness program, enshrined in documents such as Readiness and Sustainment Direction (Canadian Forces Controlled Document (CFCD) 129) and Maritime Command Combat Readiness and Training Requirements (CFCD 102), to rationalize unit readiness requirements. Recommendation 2: The RCN should review and identify budget savings in its Infrastructure Maintenance and Repair (IM&R) portfolio. In addition, it is recommended that the RCN review the expected IM&R targets for the RCN with Assistant Deputy Minister (Infrastructure and Environment) (ADM(IE)) to prevent any possible future reduction in ship readiness. Recommendation 3: Further optimize training by more fully loading courses and/or by reducing frequency of course offerings. This will reduce training costs associated with travel and cost of operating trainers, such as Naval Combat Operations Trainer (NCOT), Operations Room Team Trainer, Navigation Trainer, and Submarine Control Trainer. Recommendation 4: During the evaluation period, the RCN s command and control function experienced significant personnel increases and associated costs. It is recommended that the RCN review these increase and identify efficiencies where possible to address emerging future manning priorities. Chief Review Services vii/vii

10 1.1 Profile of Canada s Naval Forces Background 1.0 Introduction This report presents the results of the evaluation of the RCN generation of combatcapable Naval Forces. Naval forces are defined as those elements of the RCN, including supporting and related components, which are responsible for the generation and sustainment of naval readiness for employment in domestic/continental and international operations as directed by the GoC. The evaluation was conducted by CRS between November 2012 and July 2013 as a component of the DND/CAF Five-Year Evaluation Plan (2012/13 to 2016/17) and in compliance with TBS Policy on Evaluation (2009). As per the TBS policy, the evaluation examines the relevance and the performance of the program over a five-year period ( ). This evaluation, conducted on behalf of the Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS) and the Deputy Minister, will be used to inform future senior management decisions related to the development, generation and sustainment of Canada s Naval Forces and their supporting activities. 3 There have been no previous CRS evaluations of Canada s Naval Forces. However, the following audits related to naval fleet maintenance and capital equipment acquisition projects were conducted by CRS Internal Audit division: CRS Review of the Submarine Acquisition/Capability Life-Extension Program, May 2003; CRS Audit of the Halifax-Class Modernization/Frigate Equipment Life Extension (HCM/FELEX) Project, March 2011; and CRS Internal Audit of Joint Support Ship (JSS) Project, November In addition, elements of maintenance and materiel support essential to the technical readiness of the Navy were covered in the following Auditor General reports: Report of the Auditor General of Canada to the House of Commons, Chapter 5 Maintaining and Repairing Military Equipment National Defence (Fall 2011); and Report of the Auditor General of Canada to the House of Commons, Chapter 5 Real Property National Defence (Fall 2012). 3 The efficiency and economy of the program (Section 2.5) is assessed over FY 2008/09 to FY 2011/12. Chief Review Services 1/39

11 1.1.2 Program Objectives The program falls under the following program activity of the DND/CAF (PAA 2009): 2.1 Maritime Readiness and Sub-activities 3.2 Canadian Peace Stability and Security 3.3 Continental Peace Stability and Security 3.4 International Peace Stability and Security The objectives of these program areas are to support DND in meeting GoC expectations with regard to the defence of Canada, partnering in the defence of North America, and contributing, when called upon, to international peace and security operations. More specifically, these expectations are articulated in the six missions of the Canada First Defence Strategy (CFDS). The specific activities, outputs and outcomes involved in the RCN s generation and delivery of combat-ready naval forces are illustrated in the program logic model at Annex C Program Description While the expenditures for Maritime Readiness represent 11 percent of the DND annual spending, the impact of its contribution to overall DND strategic objectives and priorities has been significant. The RCN s contributions can directly impact and improve the safety and security of Canadians, and provide public confidence in the Government s ability to defend Canada and protect Canadian citizens at home and abroad. 4 The RCN s involvement in domestic/continental and international operations also draws significant positive media attention, earning recognition both nationally and internationally. The RCN also works in close cooperation with other government departments to deal with a wide range of security threats to Canada, including terrorism, illegal resource exploitation, pollution violations, narcotics trafficking and illegal immigration. The RCN is directed through Naval Staff Headquarters (NSHQ) by the Commander of the Royal Canadian Navy (CRCN), whose mission is to lead the strategic development and generation of combat-capable multipurpose naval forces and to provide advice in support of maritime operations. The RCN fleet, roughly balanced between the Atlantic (Halifax, Nova Scotia) and Pacific (Esquimalt, British Columbia) coasts, is comprised of three destroyers, twelve frigates, two replenishment ships, four submarines and twelve MCDVs, plus minor auxiliary and support vessels. These formations, known as Maritime Forces Atlantic (MARLANT) and Maritime Forces Pacific (MARPAC), manage all aspects of fleet maintenance, training and manning, while ensuring the fleet is operationally ready for deployment, exercises 4 As explained in more detail in section 2.4, during recent years, the RCN has conducted numerous successful counter-narcotic operations in domestic/continental context and successful counter-terrorist and counter-piracy activities in the international context. Chief Review Services 2/39

12 and operations. Deployments can involve the assignment of a single ship to a multinational task force, or a larger essentially self-sufficient task group of complementary ships, submarines and aircraft tailored to meet mission specific requirements 5. To respond to these missions, the RCN generates and sustains relevant, responsive, combat-capable naval forces that can respond to a wide spectrum of tasks. The RCN generates maritime forces through the following program activities: Maritime Training. This activity provides training through five naval training establishments, and contributes to the sustainment of naval capabilities through the provision of training to personnel. This includes continuing occupation and environment training and appropriate professional development and education activities. Currently, at-sea training is supplemented with simulators and other tools such as e-learning and the Defence Learning Network, often used in lieu of classroom training. Maritime Infrastructure Maintenance and Base Support. This activity, provided by the Director Naval Infrastructure Requirements reporting to the ADM(IE), captures all activities dealing with the maintenance and repair of naval realty assets. This is achieved through the maintenance and repair of naval infrastructure and the provision of administrative and logistical support. Base support involves the human resource and material support provided to all units. Maritime Equipment Maintenance. This support is provided through the Director General Maritime Equipment Program Management (DGMEPM) who is responsible to the ADM(Mat) and responsive to the CRCN. DGMEPM is the materiel authority for all naval ships, submarines, auxiliary vessels and naval equipment for shore establishments. This activity ensures that RCN ships are maintained and repaired both domestically and abroad. The work comprises preventive and corrective maintenance, as well as some engineering changes (EC) and fitting of mission-specific equipment for a given operational activity or deployment. Maritime Command and Control. This activity ensures effective governance, processes and headquarters organizations are in place for the application of command and control. This includes strategic, resource and capability plans, human resource and financial management, and logistics and resource allocation functions. Naval Readiness and Sustainment is managed by the RCN. Documents issued by the CRCN include Commander s Planning Guidance and, more recently, Readiness Direction to Formations, which provide direction for the generation of naval readiness requirements. The role of the Navy s governance structure 6 is to provide advice and recommendations on emerging issues affecting 5 Source: (consulted on December 5, 2012). 6 The Navy s governance structure is comprised of three tiers: (1) the Naval Board, (2) the Maritime Strategic Planning Board, (3) the Maritime Capability Development Board and Fleet Sustainment Program Board, Maritime Command, Chief Review Services 3/39

13 the Navy and DND/CAF. The senior executive council for the Commander RCN is the Naval Board. Operations. This activity ensures suitable support is provided to naval forces, whether they are being force-generated or employed on operations. This includes five-year plans, operational schedules, policies and briefs as well as providing services such as intelligence, harbour services and electronic warfare for the smooth manning and provision of ships to support various naval task groups. 7 While the generation of combat-ready forces leading to operations is an RCN activity, the planning and conduct of all CAF operations is a Canadian Joint Operations Command (CJOC) responsibility. Once generated, the maritime force capability is considered operational and maintained at a designated level of readiness for operational employment. 8 Readiness consists of two components operational capability and response time and is a measure of the ability of an element of the CAF 9 to undertake an approved task Stakeholders and Partners For the purposes of this evaluation, the term stakeholder refers to individuals, groups or organizations within DND that may be accountable for the generation and employment of maritime readiness and the conduct of CAF operations. These specifically include the force generator (RCN) and force employers (CJOC), as well as other allied/partner Nations Navies). Partners, vice stakeholders, also include other federal government departments and agencies including Public Safety Canada, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Canada Border Services Agency and the provincial and territorial governments. Canadians ultimately benefit from maritime readiness as the DND/CAF has the relevant capability to meet maritime defence and security missions as may be tasked by the Government. 7 The primary operational task group is a single Composite Contingency Task Group, derived from high readiness (HR) ships and submarines, able to deploy within prescribed notice to move (NTM) anywhere in the world in support of Contingency Operations. The components of the task group include an HR destroyer, replenishment ship and up to three combatants, either frigates and/or a submarine. Other readiness elements include: Naval Task Group: as a follow-on separately employable entity to the Contingency Task Group and is comprised of one HR destroyer, one HR replenishment ship and up to three HR frigates and/or submarines and a Helicopter Air Detachment onboard. Single Ship International Deployment: a single HR combatant usually conducted by a frigate, but on occasion a destroyer, submarine or a replenishment ship may conduct this mission. Domestic Naval Readiness: includes remaining frigates, destroyer(s), and submarines and 12 mine countermeasure vessels as well as port security, guidance to civilian shipping and two Fleet Diving Units. 8 CFCD 129, Readiness and Sustainment, CAF elements consist of the Royal Canadian Air Force, RCN and the Army. 10 CFCD 129, Readiness and Sustainment, Chief Review Services 4/39

14 1.2 Evaluation Scope Coverage and Responsibilities The evaluation focused on the relevance and performance of Maritime Readiness, DND/CF PAA (2009) Activity 2.1, specifically, the generation and sustainment of relevant, responsive, combat-capable multipurpose naval forces. In order to validate the RCN s capability to respond and perform in government-directed operations, the evaluation also studied the RCN s involvement in CAF-directed domestic/continental and international operations as per DND/CAF PAA Activities 3.2 to 3.4. The evaluation does not cover initial training activities prior to advanced maritime training (PAA ) nor Maritime Equipment Acquisition and Disposal ( ) or Maritime Real Property Acquisition or Disposal ( ) Resources Table 1 describes the costs attributed to the Maritime Readiness Program (PAA 2.1), the costs attributed to naval operations conducted by CJOC (Force Employment), and the number of military (Regular Force (Reg F) and Primary Reserve (P Res)) and civilian full-time equivalents (FTE) employed by the RCN. Cost of Maritime Readiness FY 08/09 FY 09/10 FY 10/11 FY 11/12 FY 12/13* Cost of Maritime Readiness (1) PAA 2.1($ Millions) $1,940 $2,090 $2,160 $2,300 $2,380 Annual change (%) Force Employment (CJOC) ($ Millions) Cost of Maritime Readiness and Force Employment (CJOC) ($ Millions) Not applicable 7.9% 3.6% 6.2% -3.6% $70.1 $13.5 $7.7 $35.9 $19.7 $2.0 $2.10 $2.17 $2.33 $2.40 Annual Change (%) Not applicable 4.8% 3.3% 7.4% 2.9% (FTEs) (2) /Reg F Person Years 20,492 21,063 21,027 20,406 19,502 Military 15,253 15,804 15,967 15,436 14,885 Civilian 5,239 5,259 5,060 4,970 4,617 Table 1. Generation and Delivery of Canada s Naval Forces. This table includes the funds associated with the cost of Maritime Readiness and operations conducted by the RCN under CJOC s direction from 2008/09 to 2012/13. It also includes number of military person years and civilian FTEs. (1) Source: PAA 2.1 Maritime Readiness expenditures (2) Source: MARCOM RCN Mil Civ_FY to FY 2012/13 Note: Military population represented at effective strength, including Reg Force and P Res; FY 2012/13 values are preliminary. Chief Review Services 5/39

15 For FY 2012/13, the combined costs for Maritime Readiness and naval operations (Force Employment) are at $2.40 billion. During the evaluation period, costs for Maritime Readiness have increased by 5.9 percent per year (more than DND s budget of approximately 2.1 percent per year). The costs attributed to naval operations (Force Employment) have decreased by $50.4 million, which led to an average annual decrease of $12.6 million in combined costs. The total number of FTEs has decreased by 5 percent Issues and Questions In accordance with the core evaluation issues noted in the Treasury Board s Directive on the Evaluation Function, 11 this evaluation has considered the following: Relevance Continued Need for the Programs Evaluation Question Does the generation and delivery of combat-ready naval forces address an actual and ongoing need? Relevance Alignment with Federal Government Priorities Evaluation Question Are the priorities of this program consistent with DND strategic objectives and federal government priorities? Relevance Alignment with Federal Roles and Responsibilities Evaluation Question Is the generation and delivery of combat-ready naval forces consistent with the roles and responsibilities of the federal government and more specifically the roles and responsibilities of the DND/CAF? Performance (Effectiveness) Achievement of Expected Outcomes Evaluation Questions To what extent have Canada s Naval Forces been able to meet expectations when assigned to operational missions? To what extent have Canada s Naval Forces achieved required levels of readiness? Performance (Efficiency and Economy) Evaluation Questions Is the level of funding for the program appropriate, sustainable, and affordable? Are the program activities and their outputs produced efficiently (at an optimum cost)? 11 Chief Review Services 6/39

16 2.0 Findings and Recommendations The following sections evaluate the relevance and performance of Canada s Naval Forces. The evaluation examined the extent to which the generation and delivery of combat-ready naval forces addresses an actual and ongoing need, is aligned with GoC priorities and DND strategic outcomes, is appropriate to the role of the federal government, achieves the intended outcomes, and demonstrates efficiency and economy. 2.1 Continued Need Does the generation and delivery of combat-capable naval forces address an actual and ongoing need? To determine whether the generation and delivery of combat-ready naval forces continues to address a demonstrable need, two key indicators were used: the likelihood of future need (threats); and the number and type of actual operational employments of Canada s Naval Forces over the past five years. The following findings are based on evidence from document reviews and key informant interviews with senior CJOC officers. Key Finding 1: There is evidence of continued need for the RCN to generate and sustain globally deployable naval forces to conduct domestic/continental and international operations, up to and including combat operations, as directed by the GoC. While Canada's immediate security environment remains relatively stable and secure, Canada continues to face a number of significant security concerns. 12 In 2008, by issuing the CFDS, the Government committed to making sure that Canada has the tools it needs to deal with the full range of threats and challenges to Canada and Canadians. 13 Over the past five years, the RCN was deployed both domestically and internationally in response to a wide range of crisis and threats as directed by the GoC. In domestic operations, the RCN was employed in an integrated, whole-of-government approach 14 to maritime security in a variety of operations (6 operations, 25 ships). Internationally, the RCN has been conducting counter-terrorism interdiction operations with key allies and regional partners in the seaward approaches to the Arabian Peninsula (15 operations, 20 ships). These forward deployments were also used for counter-piracy 12 Report on Plans and Priorities, DND, 2009/ The 2008 CFDS identifies security threats as globalization, ethnic and border conflicts, fragile states, resurgent nationalism and global criminal networks that continue to threaten international stability. Other challenges to domestic security include possible terrorist attacks, human and drug trafficking and protecting arctic sovereignty and security. 14 The role of the Canadian Government in the Oceans Sector, Chief Review Services 7/39

17 operations in the area of the Horn of Africa. The RCN was also required to respond quickly to unfolding crises, to prevent and contain conflict elsewhere. In North American/Continental Operations, following the GoC s Americas Strategy in 2007, the Canadian Navy contributed to government priorities by taking part in defence diplomacy and counter-narcotics operations throughout the Caribbean and Latin America (4 operations, 36 ships, 1 submarine). Interviews with CJOC senior officers underlined the rising global tensions and confirmed that Canada s Naval Forces have been highly relevant to international, domestic and North American defence and have been critical to the force employer s operational success. Senior external informants confirmed that the requirement for naval combat capability continued, despite the fact that over the past decade the Navy was called upon more often than before for humanitarian and disaster relief missions and constabulatory activities. Most informants, including the external ones, emphasized the need to maintain or increase the Navy s inter-operability with foreign navies and its combat capabilities, and improve its fleet readiness in the future, due to increasing global tensions and maritime security threats both at home and abroad. 2.2 Alignment with Federal Roles and Responsibilities Is the generation and delivery of combat-ready naval forces consistent with the roles and responsibilities of the federal government and more specifically the roles and responsibilities if the DND/CAF? This section examines the extent to which the generation and delivery of naval forces by the RCN aligns with departmental and federal roles and responsibilities. The findings in this section are based on documents reviewed and key informant interviews, including senior NSHQ and CJOC officers. The following indicators were used in the assessment of alignment with federal roles and responsibilities: alignment with government Acts, legislation and policies; and the extent to which Canada s Naval Forces conduct activities that are the responsibilities of other government departments, other levels of government or the private sector. Key Finding 2: There is alignment between the RCN s generation and delivery of Naval Forces and departmental and federal roles and responsibilities. Chief Review Services 8/39

18 Defence is a core federal government responsibility as articulated in the Constitution Act, 15 which defines and outlines the responsibilities and duties of the federal government, including the armed forces and defence. Furthermore, the National Defence Act, Article 17 establishes DND and the CAF as separate entities, operating within an integrated National Defence Headquarters (NDHQ), as they pursue their primary responsibility of providing defence for Canada and Canadians. Moreover, the Act assigns the Minister as the authority in charge with all matters relating to defence, including the Land, Naval and Air Services of Canada. In addition, within the Whole-of-Government Framework, 16 the generation and delivery of combat-ready naval forces fall within the Safe and Secure World through International Engagement outcome area. Accordingly, it is a priority of the Government to promote peace and security, freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law throughout the world, and the RCN (as an FG component of the CAF) has the relevant and credible capacity to meet defence and security commitments. 2.3 Alignment with Government Priorities Are the priorities of this program consistent with DND strategic objectives and federal government priorities? This section examines the extent to the generation and delivery of combat-ready naval forces is consistent with DND strategic objectives and federal government priorities. The findings in this section are based on evidence from documents reviewed for the evaluation, which include Federal Budget Plans ( ), CFDS and Reports on Plans and Priorities. Key Finding 3: The generation and delivery of combat-ready naval forces aligns directly with the government priority of A Safe and Secure World through International Engagement. 17 The following indicators were used to make this determination: alignment between priorities of the Canada s Naval Forces and federal government priorities; and alignment between Canada s Naval Forces priorities and DND/CAF priorities. Budget 2008 supported the Government's leadership abroad agenda under item Protecting Canadians and Canada. Moreover, by issuing the CFDS (2008), the GoC Constitution Act, section The federal Whole-of-Government Framework maps the financial and non-financial contributions of federal organizations to a set of high-level outcome areas defined for the government as a whole Departmental Link to Government of Canada Outcome Areas, RPP 2011/12, Chief Review Services 9/39

19 provided the CAF with stable and predictable funding to permit long-term planning, setting up clear priorities to guide future actions, including the capacity to project leadership abroad by making meaningful contributions to operations overseas. Document review suggests that the delivery of combat-ready naval forces by the RCN is directly aligned with the DND/CAF priority of Ensuring Operational Excellence Both at Home and Abroad. Through its program activities leading to generation of deployable, combat-ready naval forces, this program provides direct support to CAF combat-ready forces in support of the six core missions 18 of the CFDS. Therefore, it is deemed to be a high priority for the DND/CAF. Finally, the Report on Plans and Priorities for the Department (FYs 2008/09 to 2011/12) placed specific emphasis on increasing the RCN s operational capability. These reports consistently included the priority of ensuring operational success at sea by maintaining a highly effective but ageing fleet, while preparing to meet the challenges of a renewed three-ocean readiness. 2.4 Achievement of Expected Outcomes (Effectiveness) This section evaluates the achievement of Naval Forces expected outcomes, with a focus on the immediate outcome: the RCN s ability to generate combat-capable multipurpose forces. As detailed in the Departmental Performance Report for Program Activity (PA) 2.1 Maritime Readiness, The program will generate and sustain relevant, responsive, combat-capable maritime forces that are able to respond to a spectrum of tasks, as may be directed by the Government, within the required response time. This is accomplished by bringing maritime forces to a state of readiness for operations, by assembling, and organizing maritime personnel, supplies, and materiel. This includes the training and equipping of forces and the provision of their means of deployment, sustainment and recovery to defend Canadian interests domestically, continentally and internationally. Intermediate outcomes are considered in this evaluation insofar as they support the assessment of the RCN s effectiveness in generating combat- capable multipurpose forces. Findings with respect to effectiveness have been based on program readiness data; RCN and departmental documents, including the Chief of Maritime Staff (CMS) / CRCN assessments and directives, as well as operations reports; interviews with key staffs, and 18 CFDS six core missions are: (1) conduct daily domestic and continental operations, including in the Arctic and through NORAD; (2) support a major event in Canada, such as the 2010 Olympics; (3) respond to a major terrorist attack; (4) support civilian authorities during a crisis in Canada such as a natural disaster; (5) lead and/or conduct a major international operation for an extended period; and (6) deploy forces in response to crisis elsewhere in the world for shorter periods, DND, consulted July 26, Chief Review Services 10/39

20 responses to a questionnaire administered to Commanding Officers (CO) of commissioned ships, submarines and Fleet Diving Units Immediate Outcome To what extent have Canada s Naval Forces achieved required levels of readiness? Broadly speaking, readiness refers to the capacity (number), responsiveness and capability of Naval Forces to conduct operations or tasks as directed. The levels of readiness for Naval Forces are directed in the Canadian Armed Forces Force Posture and Readiness. Key Finding 4: During recent years there has been a steady decline in the RCN s ability to achieve the required levels of readiness, to the point that it is currently challenged to meet some of its readiness requirements. The evaluation used the following indicators to make this determination: Capacity the number of units which have achieved prescribed personnel, materiel/ equipment, and training readiness levels for HR and Standard Readiness (SR). Responsiveness NTM capacity number of units available at prescribed NTM in accordance with strategic direction. Capability Alignment between what naval forces are trained and equipped to do, and what tasks and missions they are required to perform on operations. Capacity and Responsiveness A review of Navy readiness reports over the period of the evaluation revealed the RCN has been challenged to achieve and maintain prescribed readiness levels for several years. This was found at both SR and HR levels. In accordance with CFCD 129 Readiness and Sustainment (2009), SR represents the normal level of readiness for all maritime operational capability across the Navy. Units at SR comprise a broad zone of capability that is employed for the purposes of conducting core naval training and executing assigned CAF continental and expeditionary missions that do not entail the possibility of high-intensity, full-spectrum combat. SR ships will be crewed as a minimum, to a level between percent of full complement. These ships are to be available at 10 days NTM to deploy at SR, or 90 days to generate to HR if required. Should an SR unit be deployed on a continental or expeditionary mission, its crewing and other task specific needs will be determined against mission requirements. HR units shall be capable of conducting the full spectrum of combat operations and are to be available at 10 days NTM. HR units will have undergone additional levels of training based on both the mission and the intensity requirements of full-combat operations. HR units will be earmarked for inclusion in the Composite Contingency Task Group but may deploy independently depending on mission requirements. While a ship may meet Chief Review Services 11/39

21 technical and personnel requirements at the HR level, a mission work-up will determine achieving HR for mission employment. HR units will be fully crewed and may, in addition, include other specialized personnel based on mission requirements. HR ships shall also have successfully completed and maintained validity of 90 percent of team and combat training requirements in accordance with CFCD 102 Maritime Command Combat Readiness Training Requirements. The materiel state requirements for HR units will be determined by the type of mission and resource availability; however, an HR ship shall not have any significant operational defects. A review of RCN documents highlights the challenges it faces with respect to meeting readiness targets. From FY 2009/10 to FY 2012/13, the ability to generate required numbers of frigates and destroyers at both HR and SR levels, as outlined by the CAF Force Readiness Posture, was extremely limited and in fact declined over the evaluation period. The fleet capacity was under pressure due to the number of frigates entering the HCM program and delays in the completion of the VCI program. Figure 1 depicts the decline in fleet readiness and associated risk, as the Halifax-class frigates go through the HCM/FELEX program, the Victoria-class submarines achieve full operational capability, Iroquois-class destroyers and replenishment ships are retired from service, and new shipbuilding programs begin to deliver product. Note that timelines were approximate and the timelines for new ship program deliveries and ship disposals have been delayed since As such, the readiness targets will continue to be under pressure and will not be met going forward well past Fleet Readiness Capability, Capacity & Responsiveness = READINESS Halifax-class Frigate Modernization begins (1 st refit) Victoria-class SSK FOC (Weapons Capable) Limited Task Group Capability vs. RISK Timelines are approximate Risk Victoria-class SSK Steady State (3 SSK available) 1 st Arctic Offshore Patrol Ship Halifax-class Frigate Modernized (last refit complete) 1 st Joint Support Ship 1 st Canadian Surface Combatant AOR ships retire Iroquois-class destroyer retires Figure 1. Fleet Readiness versus Risk. This flowchart illustrates the decline and rise of the RCN s Fleet Readiness and inverse increase and decline of risk over the period 2008 to Note that timelines are approximate. Source: MARCOM Strategic Assessment (2010) Amendment, Figure 2 Fleet Readiness During the five-year evaluation period, it was noted that while the numbers of ships designated at HR and SR have essentially been maintained, the RCN has only been able to do this by relying on the use of MCDV as SR units in place of the Halifax-class frigates as they undergo modernization, and there has been reduced availability of the older destroyers and auxiliary oil replenishment (AOR) ships as reflected in Table 2. The relatively stable percentage of operational sea days attributed to frigates reflects the continuous deployment of a HR frigate to international operations since 2011 and regular Chief Review Services 12/39

22 deployments of SR frigates to Operation CARIBBE, even while the number of frigates available for operations has diminished. The concern is the limited operational capability of the MCDV (a 950-ton ship) compared to a frigate (4,700 tons). As a result, the overall capability of Naval Forces has been diminished, which can translate into impacts on operational effectiveness. For example, a shortage of HR capacity meant that non-modernized SR frigates with reduced capabilities in accordance with the CRCN direction to formations were utilized in conjunction with MCDVs in Operation CARIBBE. Several issues were noted with these units which had an impact on operational effectiveness (see section 2.4.2). Fiscal Year % MCDV % Destroyer % Frigate % AOR % Total 2008/09 10% 0% 59% 31% 100% 2009/10 36% 12% 44% 8% 100% 2010/11 45% 9% 36% 9% 100% 2011/12 33% 9% 50% 8% 100% 2012/13 28% 4% 64% 4% 100% Table 2. Distribution of Operations Sea Days by Ship Class (Less Submarines). This table summarizes the percentage if sea days by class of combatant vessels for each fiscal year over the period FY 2008/09 to FY 2012/13. Source: Naval Staff Headquarters Key Finding 5: In order to meet readiness levels and force posture requirements, the RCN has to rely more heavily on the use of MCDVs as a result of reduced frigate availability during the period of the HCM. This represents a reduction in force capability. Another major concern was serious challenges for HR-designated frigates and destroyers to achieve their prescribed readiness levels. Challenges to achieve the target readiness levels were related to the following: technical readiness; effective manning strength; and combat readiness training. Technical readiness was not an issue during the first three years of the evaluation period (FY 2009/10 FY 2011/12). However, issues have increased in this area. As of FY 2012/13, it has become the leading problem with respect to the program s ability to meet prescribed readiness levels. The majority of stakeholders interviewed by the evaluation team, including the Commander of the RCN and the Commanders of both coastal formations, noted that the ageing fleet and equipment have created challenges for materiel readiness and sustainment. A lack of sufficient resources to meet maintenance demands has led to reduced ship technical readiness levels, with the restriction on funding and Fleet Maintenance Facility resources available to support the older fleet. This has been anticipated in CRCN direction to formations that has been intended to mitigate the impact on the HCM and Victoria-class programs as well as maintain funds required for FG. Between FY 2008/09 and 2011/12, DND/CAF spending on Maritime Chief Review Services 13/39